Alaska-class cruiser
|Operators=United States Navy |Class before= |Class after= |Subclasses= |Cost= |Built range= |In service range= |In commission range=17 June 1944 – 17 February 1947 |Total ships building= |Total ships planned=6 |Total ships completed=2 |Total ships cancelled=4 was laid down but never completed. }} |module2= overall |Ship beam= |Ship draft= (mean) (maximum) |Ship propulsion=4-shaft General Electric steam turbines, double-reduction gearing,Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed., Volume 1, 59. 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers 150,000 shp (112 MW) |Ship speed= to Miller, 200. |Ship range=12,000 nautical miles (22,000 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h) |Ship complement=1,517Gardiner and Chesneau, 122.–1,799Osbourne, 245.–2,251Sources vary greatly on just how many people composed the complement of the ship. |Ship armament=9 x 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns (3×3) 12 x /38 caliber dual-purpose guns (6×2) 56 ×40 mm (1.57 in) Bofors (14x4) 34 × 20mm Oerlikon (34×1) |Ship armor=Main side belt: 9" gradually thinning to 5" Armor deck: 3.8–4.0" Weather (main) deck: 1.40" Splinter (third) deck: 0.625" Barbettes: 11–13" Turrets: 12.8" face, 5" roof, 5.25–6" side and 5.25" rear. Conning tower:10.6" with 5" roof |Ship aircraft=4× OS2U Kingfisher or SC SeahawkSwanborough and Bowers, 148.The Seahawk made its operational debut upon Guam on 22 October 1944. |Ship aircraft facilities=Enclosed hangar located amidships }} }} The Alaska-class cruisers were a class of six cruisers ordered prior to World War II for the United States Navy. Officially the Navy classed them as Large Cruisers (CB), although others have regarded them as battlecruisers. Their intermediate status is reflected in their names relative to typical U.S. battleship and cruiser practices:With only a very few exceptions, U.S. battleships were named for states, e.g. or , while cruisers were named for cities, e.g. or . See United States ship naming conventions. all being named after "territories or insular areas" of the United States.Alaska and Hawaii were "insular areas" of the United States at the time; they acceded to the Union as the forty-ninth and fiftieth States in 1959. Of the six planned only three were laid down; two were completed and the third's construction was suspended on 16 April 1947 when she was 84% complete. and served with the U.S. Navy for the last year of World War II as bombardment ships and fast carrier escorts. They were decommissioned in 1947 after spending only 32 and 29 months in service, respectively. The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s when the U.S. Navy sought to counter Deutschland-class "pocket battleships" being launched by Germany. Planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska class began in the later 1930s after the deployment of Germany's s and rumors that Japan was constructing a new battlecruiser class.Worth, 305.Jane's thought that this mythical battlecruiser, the notional Chichibu class, would have six 12-inch guns and speed packed into a 15,000-ton ship. See Fitzsimons, Volume 1, 58 and Worth, 305. To serve as "cruiser-killers" capable of seeking out and destroying these post-Treaty heavy cruisers the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about 31–33 knots (36–38 mph, 58–61 km/h). Background Heavy cruiser development was steadied between World War I and World War II by the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences. In this treaty, the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy had agreed to limit heavy cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement with 8-inch main armament. Up until the Alaska class, U.S. cruisers designed between the wars followed this pattern.Bauer and Roberts, 139. The initial impetus for the design of the Alaska class came from the deployments of the so-called pocket battleships in the early 1930s. Though no actions were taken immediately, plans were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports indicated Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" which were much more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers.Scarpaci, 17.Japan actually developed plans for two of the super cruisers in 1941, though it was mostly in response to the new Alaska ships. However, the ships were never ordered due to the greater need for carriers. The navy responded in 1938, when a request from the General Board was sent to the Bureau of Construction and Repair for a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".Dulin, Jr., Garzke, Jr., 189. The U.S. President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, may have taken a lead role in the development of the class with his desire to have a counter to raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German pocket battleships,Dulin, Jr. and Garzke, Jr., 24 and 179. which had led to them being called "politically motivated",Dulin Jr., Garzke, Jr., 267. but these claims are difficult to verify.Morison and Polmar, 85. Design One historian described the design process of the Alaska class as "torturous" due to the numerous changes and modifications made to the ships' layouts by numerous departments and individuals. Indeed, plans resulted in at least nine different layouts,Dulin, Jr. and Garzke, Jr., 179–183. ranging from 6,000-ton antiaircraft cruisers to "overgrown" heavy cruisers and a 38,000-ton mini-battleship that would have been armed with twelve 12-inch and sixteen 5-inch guns.Dulin, Jr. and Garzke, Jr., 179. The General Board, in an attempt to keep the displacement under 25,000 tons, allowed the designs to offer only limited underwater protection. As a result, the Alaska class, when built, were vulnerable to torpedoes and shells that fell short of the ship.Dulin, Jr., Garzke, Jr., 183. The final design chosen was a scaled-up Baltimore class that had the same machinery as the s. This ship combined a main armament of nine 12-inch guns with protection against 10-inch gunfire into a hull that was capable of . The new class was officially funded in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the Two-Ocean Navy Act.Rohwer, 40.Along with the Alaska''s, 210 other ships were ordered at the same time: two s, five s, twelve s, four s, 19 s, four s, 52 s, twelve s and 73 s. The new ships' role had been altered slightly; in addition to their surface-to-surface role, they were planned to protect carrier groups. Because of their bigger guns, greater size and increased speed, they would be more valuable in this role than heavy cruisers, and they would also provide insurance against reports that Japan was building super cruisers more powerful than U.S. heavy cruisers. Possible conversion to aircraft carriers on 15 August 1943]] Yet another drastic change was considered during the "carrier panic" of late 1941. At this point, the Navy and the President realized that the United States needed more aircraft carriers as quickly as possible. As a result, the Bureau of Ships decided to convert a few hulls that were currently under construction to carriers. At different times, they considered converting parts or all of the light cruisers, the heavy cruisers, the ''Alaska class, or even one of the s; in the end, they chose the Cleveland''s,Friedman, 190. resulting in the conversion of nine ships under construction at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation shipyard, Camden, New Jersey as the light aircraft carriers comprising the . A conversion of the ''Alaska cruisers to carriers was "particularly attractive" because of the many similarities between the design of the s and the Alaska class, including the same machinery.Fitzsimons, Volume 1, 58. However, when Alaska cruisers were compared to the Essex carriers, converted cruisers would have had a shorter flight deck (so they could have carried only 90% of the aircraft), would have been lower in the water, and could travel fewer at . In addition, the large cruiser design did not include the massive underwater protections found in normal carriers due to the armor weight devoted to counter shell fire. Lastly, an Alaska conversion could not satisfy the navy's goal of having new aircraft carriers quickly, as the work needed to modify the ships into carriers would entail long delays. With these in mind, all planning involved with converting the Alaska''s was ended on 7 January 1942.Friedman, 191. Construction Of the six ''Alaska-class cruisers that were planned, only three were laid down. The first two, and , were completed. Construction of , the third, was suspended on 16 April 1947 when she was 84% complete. The last three, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, were delayed since all available materials and slipways were allocated to higher priority ships, such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines. Construction had still not begun when steel shortagesFitzsimons, Volume 1, 59. and a realization that these "cruiser-killers" had no more cruisers to hunt—as the fleets of Japanese cruisers had already been defeated by aircraft and submarines—made the ships "white elephants". As a result, construction of the last three members of the class never began, and they were officially canceled on 24 June 1943. Service history and served with the U.S. Navy during the last year of World War II. Similar to the fast battleships, their speed made them useful as shore bombardment ships and fast carrier escorts. Both protected when she was on her way to be repaired in Guam after being hit by two Japanese bombs. Afterward, Alaska supported the landings on Okinawa, while Guam went to San Pedro Bay to become the leader of a new task force, Cruiser Task Force 95. Guam, joined by Alaska, four light cruisers, and nine destroyers, led the task force into the East China and Yellow Seas to conduct raids upon shipping; however, they only encountered Chinese junks. By the end of the war, the two had become celebrated within the fleet as excellent carrier escorts. After the war, both ships were decommissioned and "mothballed" in 1947 after having spent 32 and 29 months in service, respectively. In 1958, the Bureau of Ships prepared two feasibility studies to explore whether Alaska and Guam could be suitably converted into guided-missile cruisers. The first study involved removing all of the guns in favor of four different missile systems. At $160 million, this proposed removal was seen as cost-prohibitive, so a second study was initiated. The study left the forward batteries (the two 12-inch triple turrets and three of the 5-inch dual turrets) unchanged, and added a reduced version of the first plan on the stern of the ship. Even though the proposals would have cost approximately half as much as the first study's plan ($82 million), it was still seen as too expensive.Dulin, Jr., Garzke Jr., 187. As a result, both ships were stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 June 1960. Alaska was sold for scrap on 30 June 1960, and Guam on 24 May 1961. The still-incomplete was considered for a conversion to be the Navy's first guided-missile cruiser for a time;A similar proposal was made to convert the uncompleted Iowa-class battleship into the first guided-missile battleship (BBG), but as with the proposal for Hawaii this conversion never materialized, and Kentucky was scrapped in 1958. this thought lasted until 26 February 1952, when a different conversion to a "large command ship" was contemplated. In anticipation of the conversion, her classification was changed to CBC-1. This would have made her a "larger sister" for , but a year and a half later (9 October 1954) she was re-designated CB-3. Hawaii was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 9 June 1958 and was sold for scrap in 1959. "Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"? Early in its development, the class used the designation CC, which signified that they were to be battlecruisers in the tradition of the ;The Lexington class would have been designated CC-1 through CC-6, had they been built. however, the designation was later changed to CB to reflect their new name, "large cruiser", and the practice of referring to them as battlecruisers was officially discouraged. The U.S. Navy then named the individual vessels after U.S. territories, rather than states (as was the tradition with battleships) or cities (for which cruisers were named), to symbolize the belief that these ships were supposed to play an intermediate role between heavy cruisers and fully-fledged battlecruisers. The Alaska-class resembled contemporary battleships (particularly the ''North Carolina''-class, ''South Dakota''-class, and ''Iowa-class'') in appearance, mounted the familiar 2-A-1 main battery,It was also found on the , ''South Dakota''-class battleship, and heavy cruisers. and shared a similar massive columnar mast. They displaced twice that of the newest heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class).Morison, Morison and Polmar, 84. and only 5,000 tons less than the London Treaty battleship standard displacement limit of 35,000 long tons (36,000 t). They were also longer than several treaty battleships such as the King George V and North Carolina classes. In design and armor the Alaska class are regarded as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. Their design was 'from the keel up, just a scaled-up treaty cruiser unencumbered by the Washington, London and Second London naval treaties, not derived from a battleship (as World War I battlecruisers were). In common with U.S. heavy cruisers, they had aircraft hangars and a single large rudder. Their armor lacked the underwater protection systems found on intermediate capital ships (described alternatively as battlecruisers or small battleships) such as the Dunkerque and Scharnhorst classes and full-fledged battleships. This left the Alaskas virtually defenseless against torpedoes, as well as vulnerable to shells falling slightly short of their mark and continuing underwater to hit the hull.http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm While the Alaskas had more side armor than other contemporary U.S. cruisers, their protection was only marginally capable of stopping 12" fire;Dulin Jr., Garzke Jr. (1976), p. 283 they were vulnerable to battleship fire (14–16" fire) at any range.Dulin Jr., Garzke Jr. (1976), p. 279. In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class, the numbers of secondary and anti-aircraft batteries of the Alaskas was similar. Whereas the Alaska class carried twelve 5"/38 caliber in six twin turrets, fifty-six 40 mm, and thirty-four 20 mm guns, the Baltimore class carried the same number of 5"/38s, eight fewer 40 mm, and only ten fewer 20 mm., considerably fewer than new U.S. battleships that had ten (save for South Dakota (BB-57)) 5"/38 twin mounts while older refitted U.S. battleships had eight.An example of an older refitted ship: An example of a newer ship: Author Richard Worth remarked that when they were finally completed, launched, and commissioned, they had the "size of a battleship but the capabilities of a cruiser". The Alaska-class was similarly expensive to build and maintain as contemporary battleships yet far less capable due to armor deficiencies, while only able to put up a comparable anti-aircraft defense as the much cheaper Baltimore cruisers. Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class were frequently described as battlecruisers at the time. The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."All Hands, December 1945, "Sleek, Fast, Deadly- Our New CB's" Some modern historians take the view that this is a more accurate designation because they believe that the ships were "in all sense of the word, battlecruisers", with all the vulnerabilities of the type.Osbourne, 245. The traditional Anglo-American battlecruiser concept had always sacrificed protection for the sake of speed and armament, meaning they were not intended to stand up against the guns they themselves carried.Sumida, Jon Tetsuro, In Defence of Naval Supremacy. London: Routledge (1993) p.262. The Alaska's percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British ''King George V'' class, the American , and the battlecruiser/fast battleship all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as the (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.Friedman, Battleship Design and Development, 166–173 Armament-wise, they had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the Baltimore class only carried nine 8"/55 caliber Marks 12 and 15 guns, the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships, Armament Main battery As built, the Alaska class had nine 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns mounted in three triple (3-gun) turrets, with two turrets forward and one aft, a configuration known as "2-A-1". The previous 12" gun manufactured for the U.S. Navy was the Mark 7 version, which had been designed for and installed in the 1912 s. The Mark 8 was of considerably higher quality; in fact, it "was by far the most powerful weapon of its caliber ever placed in service."Dulin, Jr. and Garzke, Jr., 190. Designed in 1939, it weighed , including the breech, and could sustain an average rate of fire of 2.4–3 rounds a minute. It could throw a Mark 18 armor piercing shell at an elevation of 45°, and had a 344-shot barrel life (about 54 more than the much larger but similar 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun found in the Iowa battleships.). The turrets were very similar to those of the Iowa-class battleships, but differed in several ways; for example, the Alaska-class had a two-stage powder hoist, instead of Iowa-class's one-stage hoist. These differences made operating the guns safer and increased the rate of fire. In addition, a "projectile rammer" was added to Alaska and Guam. This machine transferred shells from storage on the ship to the rotating ring that fed the guns. However, this feature proved unsatisfactory, and it was not planned for Hawaii or any subsequent ships. Because Alaska and Guam were the only two ships to mount these guns, only ten turrets were made during the war (three for each ship including Hawaii and one spare). They cost $1,550,000 each and were the most expensive heavy guns purchased by the U.S. Navy in World War II. on Alaska mount loading clips into the loaders of the left pair of guns on 6 March 1945 during the Invasion of Iwo Jima.]] Secondary battery The secondary battery of the Alaska class was composed of twelve dual-purpose (anti-air and anti-ship) 5"/38 caliber guns in twin mounts, with four offset on each side of the superstructure (two on each beam) and two centerline turrets fore and aft. The 5"/38 was originally intended for use on only destroyers built in the 1930s, but by 1934 and into World War II it was being installed on almost all of the U.S.'s major warships, including aircraft carriers, battleships, and heavy and light cruisers. Anti-aircraft battery For anti-aircraft armament, the Alaska-class ships carried 56 x 40 mm guns and 34 x 20 mm guns. These numbers are comparable to 48 x 40 mm and 24 x 20 mm on the smaller Baltimore class heavy cruisers and 80 x 40 mm and 49 x 20 mm on the larger Iowa battleships. Arguably the most efficient light anti-aircraft gun of World War II, the 40 mm Bofors was used on nearly every major warship in the U.S. and UK fleets during World War II from about 1943 to 1945. Although they were a descendant of German and Swedish designs, the Bofors mounts used by the United States Navy during World War II had been heavily "Americanized", which brought the guns up to U.S. Navy standards. This new standard resulted in a gun system set to English standards (now known as the Standard System) with interchangeable ammunition, simplifying the logistics situation for World War II. When coupled with hydraulic couple drives to reduce salt contamination and the Mark 51 director for improved accuracy, the 40 mm Bofors became a fearsome adversary, accounting for roughly half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945. The Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft gun was one of the most extensively used anti-aircraft guns of World War II; the U.S. alone manufactured a total of 124,735 of these guns. When activated in 1941, they replaced the 0.50" M2 Browning machine gun on a one-for-one basis. The Oerlikon gun remained the primary anti-aircraft weapon of the United States Navy until the introduction of the 40 mm Bofors in 1943. Ships paint scheme is USN Measure 32/1D.]] * was commissioned on 17 June 1944. She served in the Pacific, screening aircraft carriers, providing shore bombardment at Okinawa, and going on raiding missions in the East China Sea. She was decommissioned on 17 February 1947 after less than three years of service and was scrapped in 1960. * was commissioned on 17 September 1944. She served in the Pacific with Alaska on almost all of the same operations. Along with Alaska, she was decommissioned on 17 February 1947 and was scrapped in 1961. * was intended as a third ship of the class, but she was never completed. Numerous plans to utilize her as a guided-missile cruiser or a large command ship in the years after the war were fruitless, and she was scrapped. * USS Philippines (CB-4) was planned as the fourth ship of the class. She was to be built at Camden, New Jersey, but was canceled before construction could begin. * USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) was planned as the fifth ship of the class. She was to be built at Camden, New Jersey, but was canceled before construction could begin. * USS Samoa (CB-6) was planned as the sixth ship of the class. She was to be built at Camden, New Jersey, but was canceled before construction could begin. Notes References Bibliography * (Google books link) * (Google Books link) * * (Google Books link) * (Google Books link) * (Google books link) * (Google Books link) * (Google Books link) * (Google books link) * (Google Books link) * * (Google Books link) * (Google Books link) External links * Photographs of the Alaska class * Alaska class Large Cruisers From U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence recognition manual ONI 200, Issued 1 July 1950 Alaska-class cruisers Category:Battlecruiser classes Category:Cruiser classes World War II cruisers of the United States